That means that over twelve years of Republican rule, there was an average annual budget deficit of about $104 billion. Compare that with an average annual deficit since 2008 of $1.074 trillion — or about $90 billion per month.

For those of you with bad math skills, let me sum this up for you.Every month, the democrats come within 90% of increasing the deficit of what it took the Republicans an entire year to do.

Republican and fiscal conservative voters removed the Republican party from power because that party was spending too much money, putting a burden on the economy and not holding back government growth.

Independent fiscal conservatives, including many who are registered as democrats, are not going to reward the democrat party with their votes in 2010 for behavior that is much, much worse than what the Republican party did.

Here is a dirty little secret that many good liberals either don’t know or won’t admit. There are several traditional core democrat constituent groups that are more than just a little bit “social conservative” and are strongly opposed to same sex marriage. These constituent groups include Roman Catholics, the elderly and blacks.

The left won’t address this issue in their own ranks. Instead, they will engage in hate speech and mean spirited attacks against their traditional “Emmanuel Goldsteins.”

If the proponents of same sex marriage were really and truly serious about their cause, they would first start to address their opponents in their own liberal house hold and then reach out to those are in agreement with their cause

That the almost exclusively democrat Hawaiian legislature killed a same sex marriage bill is getting surprising little press from the so-called “mainstream” media. That’s because there is no Republican they can blame this on.

Our Dear Leader had a choice to make. As I pointed out before, he could have followed the path of former two term President Bill Clinton, or the path of former one term President Jimmy Carter.

Obama decided to go Carter, big time. In last night’s State of Barack speech (it was much, much more about Barack Hussein Obama than it was the United States of America), our Dear Leader, in the face of rapidly declining popularity, and faith in, both him and his far left agenda, decided to double down on his two most unpopular programs. Those are his so-called “health care reform” package, better known as Obamacare and the job killing “Cap and Tax” bill.

Here is all you need to know about Obamacare, Howard Dean, a medical doctor, former chair of the DNC and general al laround far left extremist barking moonbat, wants it killed. When the far left and the majority of the Right thinks something is a bad idea, it usually is. There is also the case to be made about having to bribe US Senators, with tax payer money, to vote for it. Senator Nelson of Nebraska was actually looking out for his state. He knew that Obamacare would bankrupt his state with unfunded federal mandates.

Barack Hussein Obama needed to act Presidential and show the nation that he is a leader. Instead, he gave the longest SOTU speech in over 40 years, spending most of it blaming former President Bush and lecturing the American people on how we needed to support his socialist agenda.

When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.

There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.

So no money for the exploration of space, but our Dear Leader still wants to give billions of tax payers dollars to the crooksatACORN.

This is yet another really bad move on the part of Team Lightbringer. As I said in back in September.

One thing that is clear from the American space program is that it created high paying, high tech jobs that contributed to the health of the American economy and spin off technology that has not just benefited America, but humanity as a whole. I’m not talking just Tang and Velcro here folks. The GPS system and satellite TV just two examples of space program spin off technologies that are still driving growth industries today. The weather satellite system that makes it possible to produce enough food to make famine obsolete is also a product of the US space program.

Ya, I said enough food to make famine obsolete. Let’s be honest here people, any wide spread famine on this planet in the last couple of decades has been the result of politics and not the lack of ability to produce or deliver the food.

To recap, an additional $3 billion a year to NASA would once again put Americans on the Moon. It would also be highly beneficial to the US economy by fueling the high tech industry, putting skilled American engineers back to work and producing a very noticable “trickle down” (more like a monsoon) effect on the industries that support that high tech economy. It would also spark an renewed interest in the sciences in American schools and universities, and promote a sense of adventure in America in a positive and constructive endeavor.

Instead, our Dear Leader and the s0-called democrat “leadership” in Congress would rather pour that tax payer money down the drain by giving it to their political allies who are under investigation for massive vote fraud in multiple states.

Is this the “Hope and Change” you were expecting?

Mr. Reynolds points out that he spoke to “some folks at the International Space Development Conference a couple of years ago who were really high on Obama — they thought he’d emulate JFK when it came to space policy.” Smart folks, but clearly delusional when it comes to politics. There is nothing in our Dear Leader‘s thin resume that suggests the he is pro-science in general, and he certainly has never been pro-space exploration. The worst part is that these same people would probably vote for Obama and his Socialist policies again, much like a battered wife with a black eye telling a police officer that her abusive husband “really loves her.” Pathetic.

To recap the video, Mr. Krauthammer states that our Dear Leader left out option #3 when discussing how his term in office will be seen. His record so far is one of mediocrity at best, and he doesn’t show any indication of improvement. So, he will probably be a mediocre one term President, with ratings that high only because of a fawning press.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.
In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.
…
One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”
I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.
…
Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”
The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.
…
I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration

I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

Barack Hussein Obama’s “change” is nothing but warmed over failed socialist ideas. This is why independents, and 20% of democrats, in Massachusetts, who overwhelmingly voted for him in 2008, rejected Obama’s policies very soundly by electing a Republican who’s stated goal was to block BHO’s horrible and budget take over of the American health care system.

Update: Tech Pundit Jason Calacanis, who was a big Obama supporter just said on the latest episode of TWiT that he is very disappointed with Obama’s lack of leadership.

Jon Stewart gets a bit worked up explaining how the democrats managed to screw the pooch by the numbers in the recent Massachusetts special election, but then he is a liberal democrat. I’m right leaning Libertarian, but as a political junkie, I feel his pain. The democrats did really screw this up. Stewart fails to mention that they completely misread the mood of the voters in the Commonwealth. Much like the Republicans failed to correctly read the mood of the voters when they got their collective asses handed to them in the 2006 & 2008 elections.

Very funny, very entertaining, reasonably accurate, and still fairly partisan. He did his best to play down Senator Brown, who has a solid resume in the State Senate, with a more solid voting record that a former Illinois State Senator who voted “present” most of the time before being elected to the U.S. Senate. He also has a law degree (the modeling helped pay for law school) and has been in the state National Guard for decades. Senator Brown worked hard during the campaign and managed to pulled ahead of the 30 point lead Martha Coakley had a month before the election (a lead she had just for having a “D” after her name). As Mr. Stewart points out, Senator Brown had some help from Martha Coakley.

Now, I’ve been a resident of the Commonwealth for several decades, and what I have been hearing in the aftermath of this election is interesting. First off, you have to remember that that “unenrolled” or independent voters out number both democrats and republicans in Massachusetts. Independents are the majority party. They tend to vote democrat, unless the democrats really piss them off, which they have. First we have our incompetent governor, Deval Patrick, a good friend of Barack Obama. Add to that several democrat legislators being arrested by federal Law Enforcement agents for blatant and widespread corruption. This is Massachusetts, we expect a certain level of corruption from our democrat politicians, but democrat State Diane Wilkerson, who has attended state senate sessions with an tracking ankle bracelet when she was convicted of massive non-payment of taxes, was arrested by federal agents in sting operation, when she shoved the bribe money she took from them in her bra. Why shove the money in her bra? Well, it seems that her purse was already full of cash she had collected in bribes early in the day.

OK, so the environment wasn’t the best for a big machine democrat party candidate. So what did the democrats nominate? A big machine democrat party candidate.

What was the result of that? Not only did independents in Massachusetts go for Senator Brown, but so did 20% of registered democrats. Let’s review that one again, 20% of the registered democrats in Massachusetts voted for the Republican candidate.

It is very interesting to hear what those democrats who voted for Senator Brown have to say. A lot were simply not happy (to put it mildly) with Martha Coakley. Then there are the elderly voters. The ones who remember John F. Kennedy and voted for him. These voters voted for Senator Scott Brown, because they say he reminds them of the late President Kennedy. One of those voters said that Scott Brown was a Jack Kennedy democrat, not a Ted Kennedy democrat. When it was pointed that Brown was a Republican, the democrat voter responded that Jack Kennedy was strong on national defense and believed in across the board tax cuts to grow the economy, like Scott Brown.

So ya, the democrats, as Jon Stewart pointed out, screwed the pooch by the numbers. The Republicans, unlike their recent performances, manged not to screw up. There were more than capable of dropping the ball the democrats handed them, but Scott Brown worked hard and had a message that sounded really good to a majority of Massachusetts voters. The more the voters learned about him, the more they liked him. The more they learned about Martha Coakley, the less they liked her.